mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, anna-maria@linutronix.de,
	frederic@kernel.org, wangyang.guo@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/fair: Move checking for nohz cpus after time check
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 21:27:46 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a17a790d-31e2-4843-aa95-577caaa88afb@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260106155010.GC3707837@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>


Hi Peter.

On 1/6/26 9:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 06:17:42PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>> Idle load balancer is kicked off only after time check. So move
>> the atomic read after the time check to avoid the overhead.
> 
> Presumably this is because the nr_cpus field is more contended than the
> next_balance field; but aren't they in the same cacheline? That is,
> *what* !??!

Main reason for cacheline contention is nr_cpus in nohz struct.
Other one is idle_cpus_mask, but that is in different
cacheline itself(most of the time)

This patch is not due to next_balance being contended. It is
simply to check the value when we are sure time has passed to
attempt NOHZ balance again.

> 
>> If there are no nohz CPUs and next_blocked has passed, then there
>> will be one additional stats based load balancing which would set the
>> has_blocked_load to 0. It shouldn't make a difference.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 7377f9117501..cd1c78d2c272 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -12447,13 +12447,6 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(struct rq *rq)
>>   	 */
>>   	nohz_balance_exit_idle(rq);
>>   
>> -	/*
>> -	 * None are in tickless mode and hence no need for NOHZ idle load
>> -	 * balancing:
>> -	 */
>> -	if (likely(!atomic_read(&nohz.nr_cpus)))
>> -		return;
>> -
>>   	if (READ_ONCE(nohz.has_blocked_load) &&
>>   	    time_after(now, READ_ONCE(nohz.next_blocked)))
>>   		flags = NOHZ_STATS_KICK;
>> @@ -12461,6 +12454,13 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(struct rq *rq)
>>   	if (time_before(now, nohz.next_balance))
>>   		goto out;
>>   
>> +	/*
>> +	 * None are in tickless mode and hence no need for NOHZ idle load
>> +	 * balancing:
>> +	 */
>> +	if (likely(!atomic_read(&nohz.nr_cpus)))
>> +		return;
>> +
>>   	if (rq->nr_running >= 2) {
>>   		flags = NOHZ_STATS_KICK | NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK;
>>   		goto out;
>> -- 
>> 2.47.3
>>


  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-06 15:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-02 12:47 [PATCH v2 0/3] sched/fair: improve nohz fields for large systems Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-02 12:47 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] sched/fair: Move checking for nohz cpus after time check Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-06 15:50   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-06 15:57     ` Shrikanth Hegde [this message]
2026-01-02 12:47 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] sched/fair: Change likelyhood of nohz.nr_cpus and do stats update if its due Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-05  3:52   ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-05  5:07     ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-05  6:41       ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-05 10:39         ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-06  3:03           ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-06  4:23             ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-06  5:50               ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-01-06  6:44                 ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-01-02 12:47 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] sched/fair: Remove nohz.nr_cpus and use weight of cpumask instead Shrikanth Hegde

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=a17a790d-31e2-4843-aa95-577caaa88afb@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wangyang.guo@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®